Too bad, because I truly because LeMond to be a genuine guy.

I agree and think he will be proven right.

Either Lance is the greatest cover-up artist in history or there simply isn't really all that much to cover up. I think there are a couple of schools of thought when it comes to Lance. A) He is clean as a whistle, except for Shiner Bock B) He absolutely had to have been a serial doper or C) He has experimented with some aspect of doping during his career but really is that talented.

If you believe C) then it stands to reason that not a lot of people were in the know. Maybe JB knew, but I doubt ex teammates knew about. Yeah, Floyd's story has more holes than swiss cheese. When it comes to rebuking allegations, I think Lance can stand up and punt this one back without much effort. It's quickly turned into a joke.

"Or, one person in a pivotal role throws another rider to the wolves by assigning the adverse result to the wrong person."

yes, anything is possible. but i think you have to assess all this using the test of reasonableness. it could be that the postal carrier is a cycling fanatic and opened the letter containing the positive result and somehow altered the results. or a great fish swallowed the postal carrier, regurgitating him three days later, but in the process the numbers got smudged while in the belly of the fish, implicating the wrong rider.

we can post mortem the testing results, and the process by which it was handled, to which landis refers. we have a pretty good idea what the process was, how the protocol worked and works. add to that: we know that landis is cycling's most imperfect messenger.

i think it must be maddening to be innocent but to have half or most of the world think you're guilty, because of your success, and because of the testimony of damaged naysayers. maybe lance is guilty. maybe i'm guilty. maybe you are guilty. i'm saying just that this process, about which i have some knowledge, is not as simple as the UCI taking a bribe, because the UCI is not the only party privy to the test results. therefore, those who're choosing to believe landis' accusations now might be just as silly and foolish as those who chose to believe his cries of innocence before.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What is interesting is that Lance has been tested for over a decade, and he has never been banned from participating. While others who are not as famous as him and probably not checked as often are frequently failing drug tests. I understand that there is a great possibility that Lance has cheated sometime, however at risk of being niave (while I fully understand there are probably some flaws in the system) I choose to believe he is innocent until proven guilty. So maybe it is this glass half-full type attitude that Lance is banking on if he is doping. But, again I must profess that there are a lot of bullets flying his way and he seems unscathed. Maybe, he is just that good. I mean he was a pro triathlete at 15 competing against the likes of Mark Allen (of which many of us dub one of the greatest ever). Also, lets not forget Kearns, Molina, Scott, and Pigg. These guys were (and still would be) great today. Despite the course being supposedly 5 minutes faster on the run in Hawaii then, many of these guys (if you add 5 min.) were turning up times just as good as the likes of Crowie. Ok this is all relative to the wind, heat etc., but the bikes then were also inferior. Now imagine, someone at 16 being neck and neck with Crowie, is it likely that between their late 20's and early 30's that they could be one of the best endurance athletes in the world??? Oh, and Floyd is not a reliable source. Using Floyd, would be like referencing Globe Magazine in a Graduate thesis as reliable material. Sorry Floyd, right or wrong - images of a childhood fable "The Boy who Cried Wolf" come to mind.

Take a look at this action to see Lance race when he was 15 and 16...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw1BCixQk8g
http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

Makes me want to wear Speedo's,
Chris Viskup

---

Running is the best source of fiber that I know of...

That's what he'd like you to think.

Slowman, he's still claiming innocence as it relates to 2006.....so there is still hope for believers!

Again, the lab does not know who tested positive. At most, they know that they tested a sample as positive according to their protocols. Nobody there need be bribed. The same goes for WADA: since the lab doesn't know who tested positive, they can't tell WADA. So WADA need not be bribed, either. To whom does the lab report? Is it the UCI, or the possible third party you mentioned?

If you'll recall, the reason those post-facto tests of the 1999 Tour samples were able to be linked to Armstrong is that one journalist got two key items: he got the lab results that linked test results to sample code numbers, and he got from the UCI documentation that linked sample code numbers to rider names (which only (?) they had, and which should not have been released).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The problem is, you can't take a step back and say 'there are problems with the current accusations so Lance didn't dope'. There was enough evidence last week (prior to Floyd opening his mouth) for any reasonable person to say that Lance was every bit as guilty of doping as Barry Bonds. As I stated before, there is actually more evidence against Lance than there is against Bonds, but because Lance is much better at managing his image than Bonds is, the idea is still out there that Lance never doped. Whereas with Bonds, everyone just accepts that he was juiced to the gills (and I don't disagree with that).

We have to look at these current accusations not in a vaccum - we have to place them at the end of the line with all the other accusations and evidence against Lance. When you do that, they don't look as 'big' - they're just more of the same. The evidence was more than damning enough already.

Can you point out an article which lists holes? I'm sorry, I can't keep up with this story, but the one "hole" I read here about the 2002 TdS (speaking of swiss chees) was an obvious misinterpretation of Landis' quote (score one for Landis). I would be interested in finding other possible discrepancies.

It would be more credible if I accused LA of doping (and I am not), but that is how far out there Floyd is. He is flat broke, his wife left him, his father in law killed himself, he is only 34 years old and all he knows how to do is ride a bike and he can't do that anymore (at least not on a major team). Add to that the fact that he has had an axe to grind with LA for several years now, he was stripped of his TDF title and numerous reports of his mental stability have been purported and you have these allegations become irrelevant even before anyone analyzes them in a manner that Slowman has.

Well, the biggest "hole" is Landis has not provided any evidence other than him stating that certain things were done/said over the past few years. Oh, and that he is a proven liar :)

What is interesting is that Lance has been tested for over a decade, and he has never been banned

In light of Ben Johnson (in the 7 years leading up to the 1988 Olympics where he was the most tested athlete in the world) and of course Marion Jones never failing a drug test), I can't believe that people still use this argument.

you mean other than that giant hole.....he did it, but I can't prove it?

Both Marion Jones and Ben Johnson failed drug tests. That doesn't strengthen your argument.

My point is that the Landis accusations don't really matter much (as they stand right now anyway) if you're trying to make a determination as to whether or not Lance doped. The evidence that existed previously is more than enough.

The only thing that the Landis accusations do is to put the issue back on the front burner as far as the media is concerned. The allegations do little to add to the already huge pile of very damning evidence against Lance.

Add to that the fact that he has had an axe to grind with LA for several years now

Has it ever occurred to you that all the people in the last 10 years that "have an axe to grind" with Lance maybe because of his refusal to take responsibility for his actions?

It's amazing how many people in Lance's circle of influence of an axe to grind or are, jealous, bitter, not credible, anti-American, have an agenda or simply hate the sport.

He is either surrounding himself with many questionable characters or he is almost a God and everyone else can't measure up.

Who else, Frankie and Floyd. He seems to fill out a team quite easily and has many many friends in the peloton. For a guy as well known and successful he doesn't appear to have that many enemies.

Wow, that is your entire argument? I'm sorry. when you said "more holes than swiss cheese" I thought you actually had information on many of the specific points. Sorry, my mistake, I will try to find it elsewhere.

"At most, they know that they tested a sample as positive according to their protocols."

what do you mean at most? truer to say at least. the lab returns an "adverse analytical finding." if that finding is for a substance that is not subject to wiggle room (e.g., allowable with a TUE), then, that lab, and WADA, can expect, and should expect, to see either a ban handed down, or a request for the B sample to be tested. in the absence of that, even if WADA and the lab were not able to match the positive to a name, it's reasonable for WADA to ask what resulted from that test.

again, lance, johann, and the UCI, would have to enter into this subterfuge with total confidence that neither WADA nor the lab (through WADA) would follow up (remember, WADA absolutely will know that a positive for EPO, nandrolone, whatever, was generated by the lab).

and all this assumes that the UCI was the testing authority. if it wasn't, then, landis' claim falls apart utterly.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

True, but it seems that EPO was the cause of the whole outbreak of recent findings. Meaning prior to the early 2000's the authorities could not test for it - now it seems like all the best in the world are beeing caught. In other words, in that category the authorities are right on the heels of the cheaters. But a few years before this, wasn't the case. While the playing that card might not always be valid, it can't be overlooked either.

---

Running is the best source of fiber that I know of...

No, I just don't feel the need to reiterate shit that has already been posted in the thread.

you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6PFRea9Ihg

Oooh, Oooh, Oooh, Oooh,
Black and orange stray cat sittin' on a fence
Ain't got enough dough to pay the rent
I'm flat broke but I don't care
I strut right by with my tail in the air

Stray cat strut, I'm a ladies' cat,
A feline Casanova, hey man, thats where its at
Get a shoe thrown at me from a mean old man
Get my dinner from a garbage can

Yeah don't cross my path

I don't bother chasing mice around
I slink down the alley looking for a fight
Howling to the moonlight on a hot summer night
Singin' the blues while the lady cats cry,
"Wild stray cat, you're a real gone guy."

I wish I could be as carefree and wild,
but I got cat class and I got cat style.

I don't bother chasing mice around
I slink down the alley looking for a fight
Howling to the moonlight on a hot summer night
Singin' the blues while the lady cats cry,
"Wild stray cat, you're a real gone guy."

I wish I could be as carefree and wild,
but I got cat class and I got cat style.

---

_________________
Anything is Possible.

The RadioShack response is quite good, especially the e-mail chain...

http://www.livestrong.com/teamradioshack/news/

What can WADA do if the UCI tells them to go pound sand: the UCI determined no sanction was to be issued and that is the end of it? What follow-up is available to the lab or to WADA?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"